Cost of gas is beginning to hurt

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I
figure it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the
airport -- and I have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long
some of the younger instructors can keep this up.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Paul kgyy]

I'm fortunate in not having to own a car.

What's kinda weird to me is the tendency to put ever larger engines in
4-place aircraft.

Mooney defined efficiency (and pretty much continues to do so) but
there seems to be a big market for 300+ horsepower engines.

I suppose if you're laying out $400K for an airplane and 4000 a year
on insurance, an additional 5-8 gph isn't a big deal.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 09:06:49 -0700, Paul kgyy > said:

> I'm fortunate in not having to own a car.
>
> What's kinda weird to me is the tendency to put ever larger engines in
> 4-place aircraft.
>
> Mooney defined efficiency (and pretty much continues to do so) but
> there seems to be a big market for 300+ horsepower engines.
>
> I suppose if you're laying out $400K for an airplane and 4000 a year
> on insurance, an additional 5-8 gph isn't a big deal.

Actually, it is a big deal. I know lots of people who own multi-million
dollar aircraft. They all complain about the price of fuel. Without
exception. No one seems to think it is pocket change.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[[email protected]]

On Apr 18, 10:18 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-04-18 09:06:49 -0700, Paul kgyy > said:
>
> > I'm fortunate in not having to own a car.
>
> > What's kinda weird to me is the tendency to put ever larger engines in
> > 4-place aircraft.
>
> > Mooney defined efficiency (and pretty much continues to do so) but
> > there seems to be a big market for 300+ horsepower engines.
>
> > I suppose if you're laying out $400K for an airplane and 4000 a year
> > on insurance, an additional 5-8 gph isn't a big deal.
>
> Actually, it is a big deal. I know lots of people who own multi-million
> dollar aircraft. They all complain about the price of fuel. Without
> exception. No one seems to think it is pocket change.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

Just wait until they jack up the fuel tax to $0.70 a gallon and then
listen to the complaints! There will be a lot more planes parked on
the ramp and fewer in the air once this tax increase goes through.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007041808545031729-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I figure
> it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the airport -- and I
> have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long some of the younger
> instructors can keep this up.


Just as the Evil Bush was dictating the cost of gas before the election, he
and Halliburton are jacking the price now that the election is over and
done. It's their retribution for losing the elections, you know.

[Peter R.]

On 4/18/2007 1:12:25 PM, wrote:

> Just wait until they jack up the fuel tax to $0.70 a gallon and then
> listen to the complaints! There will be a lot more planes parked on
> the ramp and fewer in the air once this tax increase goes through.
>

If this tax does go through, expect the number of unfilled Angel Flight
missions (failure of a volunteer pilot to accept the flight) to sharply
increase.

--
Peter

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 10:27:45 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> said:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007041808545031729-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I figure
>> it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the airport -- and I
>> have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long some of the younger
>> instructors can keep this up.
>
>
> Just as the Evil Bush was dictating the cost of gas before the election, he
> and Halliburton are jacking the price now that the election is over and
> done. It's their retribution for losing the elections, you know.

Oooookayyyy. Didn't know the President (or Halliburton) was able to do
that. I thought Nancy Pelosi was running things now (she said so on
CNN, so it must be true). We have another gas tax hike coming in July
here in Washington, but that was decided by a Democratic controlled
legislation in Olympia.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:
> It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I
> figure it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the airport
> -- and I have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long some of
> the younger instructors can keep this up.

You live 60+ miles from the airport? You just need to move closer to
the airport!!

Matt

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 14:44:21 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I
>> figure it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the
>> airport -- and I have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long
>> some of the younger instructors can keep this up.
>
> You live 60+ miles from the airport? You just need to move closer to
> the airport!!
>
> Matt

As the crow flies, it is only about 15 miles. But the road is really,
really crooked.

Hey, the house is free. It is in the woods, on the beach, with its own
creek. I can walk out my front door and pick all the oysters and clams
I want. Seals and whales play out in front, and eagles nest in my yard.
Sure, it is ten miles to the nearest town. But there are compensations.
OTOH, I notice that bears have been clawing up some of the trees in the
back yard...
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Margy Natalie]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-04-18 14:44:21 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I
>>> figure it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the
>>> airport -- and I have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long
>>> some of the younger instructors can keep this up.
>>
>>
>> You live 60+ miles from the airport? You just need to move closer to
>> the airport!!
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> As the crow flies, it is only about 15 miles. But the road is really,
> really crooked.
>
> Hey, the house is free. It is in the woods, on the beach, with its own
> creek. I can walk out my front door and pick all the oysters and clams I
> want. Seals and whales play out in front, and eagles nest in my yard.
> Sure, it is ten miles to the nearest town. But there are compensations.
> OTOH, I notice that bears have been clawing up some of the trees in the
> back yard...
Sounds great! Hmmmm, complaining about $10 for gas to the airport from
the FREE house. Rent around here is something like $1,500 a month, how
many times could we drive to the airport...

[Kyle Boatright]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm fortunate in not having to own a car.
>
> What's kinda weird to me is the tendency to put ever larger engines in
> 4-place aircraft.
>
> Mooney defined efficiency (and pretty much continues to do so) but
> there seems to be a big market for 300+ horsepower engines.
>
> I suppose if you're laying out $400K for an airplane and 4000 a year
> on insurance, an additional 5-8 gph isn't a big deal.

I think the small engined Cirruses (Cirri?) have taken the fast, 200 hp, 4
seater market away from Mooney. If you compare spec's of a pre-201 Mooney
and a Cirrus SR-20, they are reasonably close and the Cirrus is a much
simpler airplane, both to operate and to maintain.

KB

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 17:23:24 -0700, Margy Natalie > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2007-04-18 14:44:21 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:
>>
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>> It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I
>>>> figure it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the
>>>> airport -- and I have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long
>>>> some of the younger instructors can keep this up.
>>>
>>>
>>> You live 60+ miles from the airport? You just need to move closer to
>>> the airport!!
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>> As the crow flies, it is only about 15 miles. But the road is really,
>> really crooked.
>>
>> Hey, the house is free. It is in the woods, on the beach, with its own
>> creek. I can walk out my front door and pick all the oysters and clams
>> I want. Seals and whales play out in front, and eagles nest in my yard.
>> Sure, it is ten miles to the nearest town. But there are compensations.
>> OTOH, I notice that bears have been clawing up some of the trees in the
>> back yard...
> Sounds great! Hmmmm, complaining about $10 for gas to the airport from
> the FREE house. Rent around here is something like $1,500 a month, how
> many times could we drive to the airport...

Hey. I'm retired and I don't even have a pension. :-) I have to save
money any way I can.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[M[_1_]]

On Apr 18, 9:06 am, Paul kgyy > wrote:
> I'm fortunate in not having to own a car.
>
> What's kinda weird to me is the tendency to put ever larger engines in
> 4-place aircraft.
>

What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.

The oil industry is completely ready to supply unleaded avgas with
similar AKI of 91/96 leaded avgas, which would be basically straight
premium autofuel. Such fuel can easily knock $1 off a gallon in
price, and more so in the future as the cost of distributing the
leaded fuel continues to rise because it can't use pipelines.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
>Hey. I'm retired and I don't even have a pension. :-) I have to save
>money any way I can.

You need one of these :

http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/Detail.aspx?id=200

70 mpg!

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007041813552895335-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-04-18 10:27:45 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
> said:

>>
>> Just as the Evil Bush was dictating the cost of gas before the election,
>> he
>> and Halliburton are jacking the price now that the election is over and
>> done. It's their retribution for losing the elections, you know.
>
> Oooookayyyy. Didn't know the President (or Halliburton) was able to do
> that. I thought Nancy Pelosi was running things now (she said so on CNN,
> so it must be true).

Recall that prior to the last election, the Dem's were claiming that Bush
was manipulating the price of oil from the White House to better the R's
chances in the elections. Investors Business Daily had a cartoon about it
that was hilarious (Bush as "math challenged").

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"M" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 18, 9:06 am, Paul kgyy > wrote:
>> I'm fortunate in not having to own a car.
>>
>> What's kinda weird to me is the tendency to put ever larger engines in
>> 4-place aircraft.
>>
>
> What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
> engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.

It part of a big bore engine.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 18, 12:45 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 4/18/2007 1:12:25 PM, wrote:
>
> > Just wait until they jack up the fuel tax to $0.70 a gallon and then
> > listen to the complaints! There will be a lot more planes parked on
> > the ramp and fewer in the air once this tax increase goes through.
>
> If this tax does go through, expect the number of unfilled Angel Flight
> missions (failure of a volunteer pilot to accept the flight) to sharply
> increase.
>
> --
> Peter

Saudi Arabia must have some nice GA fields funded by the "tax" they
impose on us.

JG

[M[_1_]]

> > What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
> > engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.
>
> It part of a big bore engine.

True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87. I'm sure they'll do fine on
SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.

My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
fuel doesn't do GA much good.

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> Actually, it is a big deal. I know lots of people who own multi-million
> dollar aircraft. They all complain about the price of fuel. Without
> exception. No one seems to think it is pocket change.

Complaining about it and being able to afford it are two different things.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[ArtP]

On 19 Apr 2007 17:38:00 -0700, M > wrote:

>My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
>a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
>fuel doesn't do GA much good.
>
Have you tried getting mogas lately? Even auto gas is becoming
unusable because of all of the alcohol. I suspect for aviation diesel
will be the solution for a while.

[M[_1_]]

On Apr 19, 7:29 pm, ArtP > wrote:

> Have you tried getting mogas lately? Even auto gas is becoming
> unusable because of all of the alcohol. I suspect for aviation diesel
> will be the solution for a while.

Ethanol has nothing to do with this. Why 100LL doens't have ethanol
in it? Because the oil company doens't blend it when it's loaded into
the truck.

It's very simple for oil company to produce an unleaded *aviation*
gasoline with AKI similar to 91/96 avgas that would cost about the
same as Premium autofuel, transported via the normal pipeline system.
The only reason this is not happening is the aviation industry has its
head in the sand and continues to produce *new* airplanes requiring
100LL instead of 91/96. It prevents the market for the 91 unleaded
avgas to develop, and the industry suffers as a result because of the
ever lowering number of GA hours flown.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> > What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
>> > engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.
>>
>> It part of a big bore engine.
>
> True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87.

80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

> I'm sure they'll do fine on
> SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
> reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.
>
> My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
> a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
> fuel doesn't do GA much good.

You better dig into things before making such a statement. You're speaking
from a vacuum.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"M" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 19, 7:29 pm, ArtP > wrote:
>
>> Have you tried getting mogas lately? Even auto gas is becoming
>> unusable because of all of the alcohol. I suspect for aviation diesel
>> will be the solution for a while.
>
> Ethanol has nothing to do with this. Why 100LL doens't have ethanol
> in it? Because the oil company doens't blend it when it's loaded into
> the truck.

Geez...anothe Mxmaniac.

>
> It's very simple for oil company to produce an unleaded *aviation*
> gasoline with AKI similar to 91/96 avgas that would cost about the
> same as Premium autofuel, transported via the normal pipeline system.
> The only reason this is not happening is the aviation industry has its
> head in the sand and continues to produce *new* airplanes requiring
> 100LL instead of 91/96. It prevents the market for the 91 unleaded
> avgas to develop, and the industry suffers as a result because of the
> ever lowering number of GA hours flown.

Read, butthead: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182149-1.html

[Jose]

> 80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

My information (granted, many years old) is that while 80/87 is
nominally leaded, it actually has less lead than 100LL.

Is this still true?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 18, 12:45 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
>> On 4/18/2007 1:12:25 PM, wrote:
>>
>> > Just wait until they jack up the fuel tax to $0.70 a gallon and then
>> > listen to the complaints! There will be a lot more planes parked on
>> > the ramp and fewer in the air once this tax increase goes through.
>>
>> If this tax does go through, expect the number of unfilled Angel Flight
>> missions (failure of a volunteer pilot to accept the flight) to sharply
>> increase.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> Saudi Arabia must have some nice GA fields funded by the "tax" they
> impose on us.
>

Canada and Mexico should, since we buy more from them than Saudi Arabia

[Boeing NNTP News Access]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:10:14 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> 80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.
>
>My information (granted, many years old) is that while 80/87 is
>nominally leaded, it actually has less lead than 100LL.
>
>Is this still true?
>
>Jose

Yup.

100LL has 2.0 grams of lead per gallon
80/87 has (had?) 0.5 grams of lead per gallon
FYI Regular (unleaded) mogas has 0.1 grams of lead per gallon.

The EAA STC (I suspect the Peterson is the same, but mine is from EAA)
says to mix 3/4 mogas with 1/4 100LL and you will get approximately
the same lead content as 80/87 (which should keep your engine happy if
it was designed to run on 80/87).

Quite frankly, I'm a bit surprised there isn't an AD out on all
aircraft with engines designed to run on 80/87, said AD warning that
running 100LL through these engines exclusively will likely lead to
plug fouling and stuck valves. If you don't use TCP or use other
methods to get rid of the excessive lead in 100LL, it'll only be a
matter of time before the fouled plugs and stuck valves manifest
themselves.

Bela P. Havasreti

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>> What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
>> engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.
>
>It part of a big bore engine.

It has nothing to do with the bore, and everything to do with the
compression ratio.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[Private]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> Read, butthead: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182149-1.html

I notice that Avweb now requires registration and none of the bugmenot.com
listings would work. Too bad, it was a good site.

[Al[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:

(snip)


We have another gas tax hike coming in July here in
> Washington, but that was decided by a Democratic controlled legislation
> in Olympia.

Actually...the autofuel tax increase in Washington that kicks in July 1
was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2005.

Al
1964 Skyhawk
KSFF
Spokane, WA

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-04-20, ArtP > wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2007 17:38:00 -0700, M > wrote:
>
> I suspect for aviation diesel will be the solution for a while.

Exactly. Leaving 100LL for unleaded is half-assed. When fuel prices
match the prices in Europe, consumers will be going straight to
diesel, and Jet A will supply them.

I also agree w/ M. Aircraft makers are short-sighted. Consider the
small fraction of single engine diesels available. More manufacturers
should have already been on that by now.

Out of curiosity, what's to stop the GA pilot (in terms of FAA law)
from making their own batch of biodiesel from waste oil to get rock
bottom prices, and sidestep the avgas tax entirely?

Accounting for the cost of raw material, the yield would be ~$1/gal,
which would make the fuel costs of flying cheaper than that of driving
a typical car. And (IRS aside) what kind of FAA approval process
would enable a GA pilot to do that? Or is that scenario pure fiction?

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Aluckyguess]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007041814500210672-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-04-18 14:44:21 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I
>>> figure it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the
>>> airport -- and I have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long
>>> some of the younger instructors can keep this up.
>>
>> You live 60+ miles from the airport? You just need to move closer to the
>> airport!!
>>
>> Matt
>
> As the crow flies, it is only about 15 miles. But the road is really,
> really crooked.
>
> Hey, the house is free. It is in the woods, on the beach, with its own
> creek. I can walk out my front door and pick all the oysters and clams I
> want. Seals and whales play out in front, and eagles nest in my yard.
> Sure, it is ten miles to the nearest town. But there are compensations.
> OTOH, I notice that bears have been clawing up some of the trees in the
> back yard...
Sounds like one nice place.
Maybe a helicopter.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <f3hWh.756$dM1.354@trndny07>,
Justin Gombos > wrote:

> Out of curiosity, what's to stop the GA pilot (in terms of FAA law)
> from making their own batch of biodiesel from waste oil to get rock
> bottom prices, and sidestep the avgas tax entirely?

You must operate the aircraft (including the engine) iaw the limitations.
Those limitations will include minimum standards for the fuel. As long as
you could show your batch of diodiesel meets those standards, you
should be fine.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Private" > wrote in message
news:3ScWh.101941$DE1.86877@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Read, butthead: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182149-1.html
>
> I notice that Avweb now requires registration and none of the bugmenot.com
> listings would work. Too bad, it was a good site.

Make one up on your own.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:70fea2213e94e@uwe...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
>>> engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.
>>
>>It part of a big bore engine.
>
> It has nothing to do with the bore, and everything to do with the
> compression ratio.

Yes! My bad!

And what is the threshold for compression ratio?

Why does my current 7.5:1 CR still need 100LL when my older 8.5:1 did as
well?

[Blueskies]

"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message news:f3hWh.756$dM1.354@trndny07...
: On 2007-04-20, ArtP > wrote:
: > On 19 Apr 2007 17:38:00 -0700, M > wrote:
: >
: > I suspect for aviation diesel will be the solution for a while.
:
: Exactly. Leaving 100LL for unleaded is half-assed. When fuel prices
: match the prices in Europe, consumers will be going straight to
: diesel, and Jet A will supply them.
:
: I also agree w/ M. Aircraft makers are short-sighted. Consider the
: small fraction of single engine diesels available. More manufacturers
: should have already been on that by now.
:
: Out of curiosity, what's to stop the GA pilot (in terms of FAA law)
: from making their own batch of biodiesel from waste oil to get rock
: bottom prices, and sidestep the avgas tax entirely?
:
: Accounting for the cost of raw material, the yield would be ~$1/gal,
: which would make the fuel costs of flying cheaper than that of driving
: a typical car. And (IRS aside) what kind of FAA approval process
: would enable a GA pilot to do that? Or is that scenario pure fiction?
:
: --


Diesel or Jet fuel will cost us the same a 100LL if the switch over occurs. BioDiesel will also become unobtanium
when/if the demand shifts; there is not enough bio stuff to make it with to go around.

[Chris]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Apr 18, 12:45 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2007 1:12:25 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> > Just wait until they jack up the fuel tax to $0.70 a gallon and then
>>> > listen to the complaints! There will be a lot more planes parked on
>>> > the ramp and fewer in the air once this tax increase goes through.
>>>
>>> If this tax does go through, expect the number of unfilled Angel Flight
>>> missions (failure of a volunteer pilot to accept the flight) to sharply
>>> increase.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> Saudi Arabia must have some nice GA fields funded by the "tax" they
>> impose on us.

Tax??? It's their oil and I suppose in a free market you can charge what you
like - when you use more the price goes up and when you use less the price
goes down. Start using less.

It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> On Apr 18, 12:45 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2007 1:12:25 PM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Just wait until they jack up the fuel tax to $0.70 a gallon and then
>>>> > listen to the complaints! There will be a lot more planes parked on
>>>> > the ramp and fewer in the air once this tax increase goes through.
>>>>
>>>> If this tax does go through, expect the number of unfilled Angel Flight
>>>> missions (failure of a volunteer pilot to accept the flight) to sharply
>>>> increase.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Saudi Arabia must have some nice GA fields funded by the "tax" they
>>> impose on us.
>
> Tax??? It's their oil and I suppose in a free market you can charge what
> you like -

The open market determines the price and that's where everyone sells.

> when you use more the price goes up and when you use less the price goes
> down.

Supply is the big determination, and the demand part is being outstripped by
China and India.

> Start using less.

Start producing more. Something like 75% of US capacity is "off limits"
thanks to Congress (who will always have all THEY need).

>
> It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.

Bull **** in spades.

Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon; government,
state and federal, gets 24 cents up to 60 cents for doing absolutly NOTHING
by signing papers.


You are utterly and totally clueless.

[[email protected]]

>> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon; government,
> state and federal, gets 24 cents up to 60 cents for doing absolutly NOTHING
> by signing papers.
>
Really? I thought that building and maintaining roads and bridges was
something, not nothing. Isn't the auto fuel tax used to fund highway
and road construction? Maybe I am mistaken.

By the same reasoning, the FAA does nothing for the tax they collect
on avgas. Is that correct?

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-04-21, Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article <f3hWh.756$dM1.354@trndny07>,
> Justin Gombos > wrote:
>
> You must operate the aircraft (including the engine) iaw the
> limitations. Those limitations will include minimum standards for
> the fuel. As long as you could show your batch of diodiesel meets
> those standards, you should be fine.

That's more favorable than I would have expected. I suspect it would
be trivial for biodiesel to exceed the standards that petroleum diesel
is held to, at least in terms of quality.

There is a quality standard in place for producing biodiesel: ASTM
D6751. All biodiesel must meet that standard. So it's a question of
whether ASTM D6751 fuel complies w/ the standard you're talking about,
by default. What do you mean by "iaw?" Does the PIM document the
standard you're referring to?

If biodiesel falls short of the standards, it can be mixed w/ just
enough jet A to make it compliant.

On 2007-04-21, Blueskies > wrote:
>
> Diesel or Jet fuel will cost us the same a 100LL if the switch over
> occurs.

If that's true, then diesel will certainly be favorable because of the
superior efficiency (you travel go further on a gallon of diesel), and
longer engine life.

> BioDiesel will also become unobtanium when/if the demand shifts;
> there is not enough bio stuff to make it with to go around.

Do you think it would hit that extreme? I think aircraft owners are
unlikely to stop using their 100LL engines, and all buy diesels all at
once. The upfront cost and downtime would keep down the numbers of
owners making the transition, IMO. Certainly the GA market is
oversaturated with 100LL engines as it stands.

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
>>> government,
>> state and federal, gets 24 cents up to 60 cents for doing absolutly
>> NOTHING
>> by signing papers.
>>
> Really? I thought that building and maintaining roads and bridges was
> something, not nothing. Isn't the auto fuel tax used to fund highway
> and road construction?

Very little...that's why they estimate our federtal infrastructure is "going
to hell". Mostly it goes to pork projects for connected pols and their
buddies.

> Maybe I am mistaken.

More than half of fuel taxes wind up in the general fund, both federally and
in most states.

> By the same reasoning, the FAA does nothing for the tax they collect
> on avgas. Is that correct?

Nope.

Read the thread, then get a clue.

[Borat]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> On Apr 18, 12:45 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/2007 1:12:25 PM, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Just wait until they jack up the fuel tax to $0.70 a gallon and then
>>>>> > listen to the complaints! There will be a lot more planes parked on
>>>>> > the ramp and fewer in the air once this tax increase goes through.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this tax does go through, expect the number of unfilled Angel
>>>>> Flight
>>>>> missions (failure of a volunteer pilot to accept the flight) to
>>>>> sharply
>>>>> increase.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> Saudi Arabia must have some nice GA fields funded by the "tax" they
>>>> impose on us.
>>
>> Tax??? It's their oil and I suppose in a free market you can charge what
>> you like -
>
> The open market determines the price and that's where everyone sells.
>
>> when you use more the price goes up and when you use less the price goes
>> down.
>
> Supply is the big determination, and the demand part is being outstripped
> by China and India.
>
>> Start using less.
>
> Start producing more. Something like 75% of US capacity is "off limits"
> thanks to Congress (who will always have all THEY need).
>
>>
>> It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
>
> Bull **** in spades.
>
> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon; government,
> state and federal, gets 24 cents up to 60 cents for doing absolutly
> NOTHING by signing papers.
>
>
> You are utterly and totally clueless.

redneck ****!

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>> It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
>
> Bull **** in spades.
>
> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;

Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in the
history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to mention GA
itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.

-c

[Newps]

The national economy is booming. Anybody with a 401k can tell you that.
April has so far been one of the best months in a long time.



gatt wrote:

> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
>>
>>Bull **** in spades.
>>
>>Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
>
>
> Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in the
> history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to mention GA
> itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.
>
> -c
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
> news:f3hWh.756$dM1.354@trndny07...
> : On 2007-04-20, ArtP > wrote:
> : > On 19 Apr 2007 17:38:00 -0700, M > wrote:
> : >
> : > I suspect for aviation diesel will be the solution for a while.
> :
> : Exactly. Leaving 100LL for unleaded is half-assed. When fuel prices
> : match the prices in Europe, consumers will be going straight to
> : diesel, and Jet A will supply them.
> :
> : I also agree w/ M. Aircraft makers are short-sighted. Consider the
> : small fraction of single engine diesels available. More manufacturers
> : should have already been on that by now.

Ain't gonna happen, since most GA aircraft have gasoline engines, which
will puke their guts out on biodiesel (or any other Diesel, for that
matter.

> : Out of curiosity, what's to stop the GA pilot (in terms of FAA law)
> : from making their own batch of biodiesel from waste oil to get rock
> : bottom prices, and sidestep the avgas tax entirely?

Engine compatability -- 99.% of GA engines are piston engines designed
for gasoline. turbine engines, theoretically, will burn anything that
can be metered. They would have to be recalibrated for biodiesel, due to
viscosity/density differences; additives would have to be added to
prevent water and other contamination; they might freeze up at altitude
(-60F for some jets).


> : Accounting for the cost of raw material, the yield would be ~$1/gal,
> : which would make the fuel costs of flying cheaper than that of driving
> : a typical car. And (IRS aside) what kind of FAA approval process
> : would enable a GA pilot to do that? Or is that scenario pure fiction?
> :
> : --
>
>
> Diesel or Jet fuel will cost us the same a 100LL if the switch over occurs.
> BioDiesel will also become unobtanium
> when/if the demand shifts; there is not enough bio stuff to make it with to
> go around.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> > Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
>
> Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in the
> history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to mention GA
> itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.

If they only get around $0.12 to $0.15 profit per gallon, and they still get
higher and higher profits, maybe it's because they keep selling more and
more of the stuff.

duh

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-04-23, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
> Ain't gonna happen, since most GA aircraft have gasoline engines,
> which will puke their guts out on biodiesel (or any other Diesel,
> for that matter.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that a pilot put biodiesel
in a non-diesel engine.

But since you bring it up, a gasoline engine can actually burn
(bio)diesel safely, as long as it's mixed with at least 90% gasoline.
It would essentially be the equivelent of very high octane gasoline.
Are you familiar with those "octane boosters" sold in 8 dollar retail
bottles with all the fancy graphics? Lookup the MSDS on it - it's
only kerosene (iow, fuel oil) ;)

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <HDcXh.4499$0d2.3629@trndny02>,
Justin Gombos > wrote:

> On 2007-04-23, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Blueskies" > wrote:
> >
> > Ain't gonna happen, since most GA aircraft have gasoline engines,
> > which will puke their guts out on biodiesel (or any other Diesel,
> > for that matter.
>
> You misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that a pilot put biodiesel
> in a non-diesel engine.
>
> But since you bring it up, a gasoline engine can actually burn
> (bio)diesel safely, as long as it's mixed with at least 90% gasoline.
> It would essentially be the equivelent of very high octane gasoline.
> Are you familiar with those "octane boosters" sold in 8 dollar retail
> bottles with all the fancy graphics? Lookup the MSDS on it - it's
> only kerosene (iow, fuel oil) ;)

Kerosene is very LOW octane!

[TheSmokingGnu]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> Kerosene is very LOW octane!

But, doncha see! Just pour a bit in with your regular fuel, and once the
seals fail completely, you'll have near infinite octane!

:P

TheSmokingGnu

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
>>
>> Bull **** in spades.
>>
>> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
>
> Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in the
> history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to mention
> GA itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.

There are several industries with higher profit margins; they just don't
have the volume or the breath of market. Exxon pumped something like 250
billion gallons last year.

BTW, while the oil companies make 12-15 cents, take a look at the government
take:

Federal rate of 18.4 cents/gallon and the states (Excise & Other) at 18
(Montana) to
64 cents (NY), 60.1 (Hawaii), California (60.0) per gallon.

The average tax on gas is 45.9 cent/gallon (Federal & State) as of last fall
(2005).

And don't give that BS about government using it for infrastructure; our
roads are deteriorating since half goes into the general funds and the
remainder goes largerly to politically connected pork projects.

So who is doing the bleeding?

Here's a dollar: buy a clue.
--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[Larry Stimely]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
>>> Bull **** in spades.
>>>
>>> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
>> Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in the
>> history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to mention
>> GA itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.
>
> There are several industries with higher profit margins; they just don't
> have the volume or the breath of market. Exxon pumped something like 250
> billion gallons last year.
>
> BTW, while the oil companies make 12-15 cents, take a look at the government
> take:
>
> Federal rate of 18.4 cents/gallon and the states (Excise & Other) at 18
> (Montana) to
> 64 cents (NY), 60.1 (Hawaii), California (60.0) per gallon.
>
> The average tax on gas is 45.9 cent/gallon (Federal & State) as of last fall
> (2005).
>
> And don't give that BS about government using it for infrastructure; our
> roads are deteriorating since half goes into the general funds and the
> remainder goes largerly to politically connected pork projects.
>
> So who is doing the bleeding?
>
> Here's a dollar: buy a clue.

I think the future of general aviation belongs to diesel. I've been
doing a little research on the Thielert 172/182 and the economics of it
are compelling. You're talking about the difference between ~17.5 gph
and ~11.5 gph on a 182...and the diesel has seventy percent fewer moving
parts in it.

There's also significant concern about the ongoing availability of 100LL.

So...all I have to do is sell my wife on the idea of buying a Thielert
172 with a glass panel.

Fat chance.

[Newps]

Larry Stimely wrote:

> I think the future of general aviation belongs to diesel. I've been
> doing a little research on the Thielert 172/182 and the economics of it
> are compelling. You're talking about the difference between ~17.5 gph
> and ~11.5 gph on a 182...and the diesel has seventy percent fewer moving
> parts in it.


I suppose you could get 17.5 gph thru a 182 but the tail pipe would be
dripping wet. Top of the green, 23" and 2450, figure 12-12.5 gph. I
don't run 17.5 thru my Bonanza with the 520, figure 14.5 at 75%.

[ArtP]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:52:20 -0700, Larry Stimely
> wrote:


>So...all I have to do is sell my wife on the idea of buying a Thielert
>172 with a glass panel.

I priced out a diesel for a 172. It came to $75,000 installed. We need
a lot of people like you to buy now so eventually the price will come
down to a reasonable level.

[Blueskies]

"ArtP" > wrote in message ...
: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:52:20 -0700, Larry Stimely
: > wrote:
:
:
: >So...all I have to do is sell my wife on the idea of buying a Thielert
: >172 with a glass panel.
:
: I priced out a diesel for a 172. It came to $75,000 installed. We need
: a lot of people like you to buy now so eventually the price will come
: down to a reasonable level.

As it is now there is no such thing as an overhaul on those Thielert engines. Apparently run them to 'tbo' and throw
them away...

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-04-24, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article <HDcXh.4499$0d2.3629@trndny02>,
>
> Kerosene is very LOW octane!

Interesting!

In that case I'll have to post the source of my comment:

http://www.malcopro.com/cgi-win/malmsds.exe/1088

I'm not endorsing that product or anything.. In fact I'm more inclined
to question it at this point.

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-20 18:26:28 -0700, Al > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
> We have another gas tax hike coming in July here in
>> Washington, but that was decided by a Democratic controlled legislation
>> in Olympia.
>
> Actually...the autofuel tax increase in Washington that kicks in July 1
> was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2005.
>
> Al
> 1964 Skyhawk
> KSFF
> Spokane, WA

Really? I was out of state in 2005, but I was under the impression that
Democrats have had a nearly 2/3 majority in both houses for several
years now. In fact, I recently got a call from a Republican fund-raiser
demonizing the Dems for the gas tax. If Republicans controlled the
legislature in 2005, how come Republican Mike Hewitt was the minority
leader?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-20 18:26:28 -0700, Al > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
> We have another gas tax hike coming in July here in
>> Washington, but that was decided by a Democratic controlled legislation
>> in Olympia.
>
> Actually...the autofuel tax increase in Washington that kicks in July 1
> was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2005.
>
> Al
> 1964 Skyhawk
> KSFF
> Spokane, WA

Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
in the House.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Larry Stimely" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "gatt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
>>>> Bull **** in spades.
>>>>
>>>> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
>>> Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in
>>> the
>>> history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to
>>> mention
>>> GA itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.
>>
>> There are several industries with higher profit margins; they just don't
>> have the volume or the breath of market. Exxon pumped something like 250
>> billion gallons last year.
>>
>> BTW, while the oil companies make 12-15 cents, take a look at the
>> government
>> take:
>>
>> Federal rate of 18.4 cents/gallon and the states (Excise & Other) at 18
>> (Montana) to
>> 64 cents (NY), 60.1 (Hawaii), California (60.0) per gallon.
>>
>> The average tax on gas is 45.9 cent/gallon (Federal & State) as of last
>> fall (2005).
>>
>> And don't give that BS about government using it for infrastructure; our
>> roads are deteriorating since half goes into the general funds and the
>> remainder goes largerly to politically connected pork projects.
>>
>> So who is doing the bleeding?
>>
>> Here's a dollar: buy a clue.
>
> I think the future of general aviation belongs to diesel. I've been doing
> a little research on the Thielert 172/182 and the economics of it are
> compelling. You're talking about the difference between ~17.5 gph and
> ~11.5 gph on a 182...and the diesel has seventy percent fewer moving parts
> in it.
>
> There's also significant concern about the ongoing availability of 100LL.
>
> So...all I have to do is sell my wife on the idea of buying a Thielert 172
> with a glass panel.
>
> Fat chance.

Any lowdown on something in the range of 300-350 HP?

[Snowbird]

"Matt Barrow" wrote ...
>
>
> Any lowdown on something in the range of 300-350 HP?
>

Check out Thielert's latest 4.0 V8. 350 HP derated to 310, available for the
C206. Empty weight increases some 150 lb, performance otherwise broadly
similar.

Dunno if it's a viable option with US fuel prices, but in Europe it's quite
interesting.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Blueskies wrote:
> "ArtP" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:52:20 -0700, Larry Stimely
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So...all I have to do is sell my wife on the idea of buying a
>>> Thielert 172 with a glass panel.
>>
>> I priced out a diesel for a 172. It came to $75,000 installed. We
>> need a lot of people like you to buy now so eventually the price
>> will come down to a reasonable level.
>
> As it is now there is no such thing as an overhaul on those Thielert
> engines. Apparently run them to 'tbo' and throw them away...

Business Plan Alert....

Seems like there might be some engines available in the future that would be
great for experimental aircraft. To bad Thielert will probably MAKE you give
them your old engine in order to buy a new one.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <8CAXh.1143$YI1.985@trndny04>,
Justin Gombos > wrote:

> On 2007-04-24, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> > In article <HDcXh.4499$0d2.3629@trndny02>,
> >
> > Kerosene is very LOW octane!
>
> Interesting!
>
> In that case I'll have to post the source of my comment:
>
> http://www.malcopro.com/cgi-win/malmsds.exe/1088
>
> I'm not endorsing that product or anything.. In fact I'm more inclined
> to question it at this point.

Nowhere in the website does it give the octane rating for the kerosene,
which it lists as "86%-98%." The octane boost has to come from the other
2%-14%. If there is so much kerosene in it, I would not trust its
efficacy.

[Larry Stimely]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Larry Stimely" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> "gatt" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
>>>>> Bull **** in spades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
>>>> Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in
>>>> the
>>>> history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to
>>>> mention
>>>> GA itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.
>>> There are several industries with higher profit margins; they just don't
>>> have the volume or the breath of market. Exxon pumped something like 250
>>> billion gallons last year.
>>>
>>> BTW, while the oil companies make 12-15 cents, take a look at the
>>> government
>>> take:
>>>
>>> Federal rate of 18.4 cents/gallon and the states (Excise & Other) at 18
>>> (Montana) to
>>> 64 cents (NY), 60.1 (Hawaii), California (60.0) per gallon.
>>>
>>> The average tax on gas is 45.9 cent/gallon (Federal & State) as of last
>>> fall (2005).
>>>
>>> And don't give that BS about government using it for infrastructure; our
>>> roads are deteriorating since half goes into the general funds and the
>>> remainder goes largerly to politically connected pork projects.
>>>
>>> So who is doing the bleeding?
>>>
>>> Here's a dollar: buy a clue.
>> I think the future of general aviation belongs to diesel. I've been doing
>> a little research on the Thielert 172/182 and the economics of it are
>> compelling. You're talking about the difference between ~17.5 gph and
>> ~11.5 gph on a 182...and the diesel has seventy percent fewer moving parts
>> in it.
>>
>> There's also significant concern about the ongoing availability of 100LL.
>>
>> So...all I have to do is sell my wife on the idea of buying a Thielert 172
>> with a glass panel.
>>
>> Fat chance.
>
> Any lowdown on something in the range of 300-350 HP?

Haven't heard anything. Right now I'm just trying to get my skills to
the point where I'm ready to solo, get the private ticket and find an
economical way to build some time.

I'm still very new at this. Give me some time.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 24, 10:35 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "gatt" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
>
> >> Bull **** in spades.
>
> >> Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
>
> > Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in the
> > history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to mention
> > GA itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.
>
> There are several industries with higher profit margins; they just don't
> have the volume or the breath of market. Exxon pumped something like 250
> billion gallons last year.
>
> BTW, while the oil companies make 12-15 cents, take a look at the government
> take:
>
> Federal rate of 18.4 cents/gallon and the states (Excise & Other) at 18
> (Montana) to
> 64 cents (NY), 60.1 (Hawaii), California (60.0) per gallon.
>
> The average tax on gas is 45.9 cent/gallon (Federal & State) as of last fall
> (2005).
>
> And don't give that BS about government using it for infrastructure; our
> roads are deteriorating since half goes into the general funds and the
> remainder goes largerly to politically connected pork projects.
>
> So who is doing the bleeding?
>
> Here's a dollar: buy a clue.
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performace Homes, LLC.
> Colorado Springs, CO

Yep, if you want to rape people you don't join industry, you join
gov't.

-Robert

[Jose]

> Nowhere in the website does it give the octane rating for the kerosene,
> which it lists as "86%-98%." The octane boost has to come from the other
> 2%-14%. If there is so much kerosene in it, I would not trust its
> efficacy.

Remember, octane is not a measure of power or energy. It is a measure
of knock (detonation) resistance.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Highflyer]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "M" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>>> > What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
>>> > engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.
>>>
>>> It part of a big bore engine.
>>
>> True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87.
>
> 80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.
>
>> I'm sure they'll do fine on
>> SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
>> reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.
>>
>> My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
>> a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
>> fuel doesn't do GA much good.
>
> You better dig into things before making such a statement. You're speaking
> from a vacuum.
>
>
Don't tell the government that 80/87 is a leaded fuel. They have made such
a big deal out of it being unleaded so it won't poison your platinum
catalytic converter that afterburns your exhaust to clean up the combustion
partial products! :-)

There has been a move afoot for some time to eliminate 100 octane "Low Lead"
aviation fuel, because it is the only leaded fuel still being made in the
US. Then all aircraft would have to use the available unleaded fuel.

My experience with the big modern engines is somewhat limited since my
newest airplane left the factory in the spring of 1955, about the time I
started college. However, I can say with the authority of experience that
the IO-520's that I have flown not only demand 100LL but are finicky about
that. I have gotten brands of 100LL that the 520 definately didn't like,
and brands that caused her to hum along just fine.

My poor old main ride also has a three hundred horsepower engine and burns
exactly the same amount of fuel per horsepower per hour as the IO-520. It
actually get a bit MORE efficiency because an airplane runs on thrust, not
horsepower. My 1800rpm cruise allows considerably more pounds of thrust
per horsepower than the higher cruise rpms of the more modern engines. Of
course I squeeze my 300 horsepower out of a measly 680 cubic inches instead
of 520. That does add a few pounds of weight and a bit of frontal area. I
also have half again as many cylinders hanging in the breeze as the little
520! :-)

Plan now. The 10th or 11th ( I lost count several years ago ) annual
rec.aviation annual EVENT at Pinckneyville is coming up soon. It is planned
this year for May 18, 19, and 20. It is an unparalleled opportunity to
actually see some of the people you have exchanged various views with on the
internet. If you have never heard of the Pinckneyville Flyin see the
unofficial FAQ at http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html

If you still have any questions you will have to come to the flyin to get
them answered. Or, perhaps, merely rendered irrelevant. :-)

We would appreciate any folks planning to attend drop an email to Mary at
and let her know how many folks are coming and what days.
It is a long way to the nearest grocery store and even farthur to a good
liquor store from the airport and we don't want to run out of essential
supplies! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[ktbr]

Justin Gombos wrote:
>
> But since you bring it up, a gasoline engine can actually burn
> (bio)diesel safely, as long as it's mixed with at least 90% gasoline.
> It would essentially be the equivelent of very high octane gasoline.
> Are you familiar with those "octane boosters" sold in 8 dollar retail
> bottles with all the fancy graphics? Lookup the MSDS on it - it's
> only kerosene (iow, fuel oil) ;)

There are problems with biodeisel at altitude. It may never be
viable for aircraft. Pie in the sky is for people on the ground.

[ktbr]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
> 2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
> in the House.

Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "M" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>> > What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
>>>> > engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.
>>>>
>>>> It part of a big bore engine.
>>>
>>> True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87.
>>
>> 80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.
>>
>>> I'm sure they'll do fine on
>>> SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
>>> reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.
>>>
>>> My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
>>> a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
>>> fuel doesn't do GA much good.
>>
>> You better dig into things before making such a statement. You're
>> speaking from a vacuum.
>>
>>
> Don't tell the government that 80/87 is a leaded fuel. They have made
> such a big deal out of it being unleaded so it won't poison your platinum
> catalytic converter that afterburns your exhaust to clean up the
> combustion partial products! :-)

Right you are...I was thinking 100 or the old other stuff (heavily leaded).

It is amazing, how many people fail to realize that the 30% of aircraft that
HAVE TO HAVE 100LL are the ones that do 70% (or more) of the flying hours.

The recreational aircraft that can burn Sterno, rubbling alcohol, or Jack
Daniels, just don't make much of a market.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>And what is the threshold for compression ratio?
>
>Why does my current 7.5:1 CR still need 100LL when my older 8.5:1 did as
>well?

Sorry, I must have missed this post over the weekend. Is your current
engine turbocharged? I'm scratching my head trying to come up with a 7.5:1
engine that requires 100LL.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:30:06 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>You must operate the aircraft (including the engine) iaw the limitations.
>Those limitations will include minimum standards for the fuel. As long as
>you could show your batch of diodiesel meets those standards, you
>should be fine.

Hmm, I always wondered about that. I used to own a 1941 Taylorcraft
(with A-65 engine), and the type certificate simply said "73 octane
minumum". No mention of "aviation gasoline" or whatever... seemed to
me that implied that auto gas should be legal, even without an STC.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, who put a "stop payment" on my reality check?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Dana M. Hague <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:30:06 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
> >You must operate the aircraft (including the engine) iaw the limitations.
> >Those limitations will include minimum standards for the fuel. As long as
> >you could show your batch of diodiesel meets those standards, you
> >should be fine.
>
> Hmm, I always wondered about that. I used to own a 1941 Taylorcraft
> (with A-65 engine), and the type certificate simply said "73 octane
> minumum". No mention of "aviation gasoline" or whatever... seemed to
> me that implied that auto gas should be legal, even without an STC.
>
> -Dana

Those engines were certificated to use unleaded gas. Remember "Phillips
66"? It was 66 octane; "Union 76" was 76 octane.

In WW-II liason aircraft used "combat gas," which was somewhere around
80 octane (there is somebody out there who can clarify this).

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:714b95624358f@uwe...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>And what is the threshold for compression ratio?
>>
>>Why does my current 7.5:1 CR still need 100LL when my older 8.5:1 did as
>>well?
>
> Sorry, I must have missed this post over the weekend. Is your current
> engine turbocharged? I'm scratching my head trying to come up with a
> 7.5:1
> engine that requires 100LL.

TSIO-550C

--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-26 05:36:04 -0700, ktbr > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
>> 2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
>> in the House.
>
> Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.

It certainly is when you consider that Al was saying that the
Republicans controlled both houses.

It was the Democrats who passed the gas tax increase that takes effect
on July 1 in Washington, not the Republicans.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007042709185616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-04-26 05:36:04 -0700, ktbr > said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
>>> 2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
>>> in the House.
>>
>> Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.
>
> It certainly is when you consider that Al was saying that the Republicans
> controlled both houses.
>
> It was the Democrats who passed the gas tax increase that takes effect on
> July 1 in Washington, not the Republicans.

Algore, Kerry and Hillary have all said (when addressing the appropriate
audiences) that we should be paying $5.00 a gallon and taxes should be
raised accordingly.

Wow! More money to **** away.

[M[_1_]]

On Apr 26, 7:16 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>
> It is amazing, how many people fail to realize that the 30% of aircraft that
> HAVE TO HAVE 100LL are the ones that do 70% (or more) of the flying hours.
>

I have seen this 30%/70% number repeatedly, but I don't remember it
ever came from a scientific survey, or just someones rough estimate.

Regardless of that, this might be true in 1997, but I doubt it's true
anymore in 2007. Especially if you exclude engines there're
originally certificated for 91/96 avgas. Commercial operators flying
large number hours have been increasingly switching to turboprop
equipment in the last 10 years for things like feeder line freight,
air taxi or charter. That has contributed to the big decline of
overall 100LL consumption in U.S.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>TSIO-550C
>
That's what I figured. Turbocharged engines are a different kettle of fish.
The main reason is the higher temperatures in the induction system lowers the
detonation margin considerably.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[john smith[_2_]]

> Those engines were certificated to use unleaded gas. Remember "Phillips
> 66"? It was 66 octane; "Union 76" was 76 octane.
>
> In WW-II liason aircraft used "combat gas," which was somewhere around
> 80 octane (there is somebody out there who can clarify this).

Isn't octane calculate in a different manner now than it was 60 years
ago?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7159afcd0261c@uwe...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>TSIO-550C
>>
> That's what I figured. Turbocharged engines are a different kettle of
> fish.

So was my last one; TNIO-550 (okay, turboNORMALIZED).

> The main reason is the higher temperatures in the induction system lowers
> the
> detonation margin considerably.

Hmmm...

Deakins "Detonation Myths".

/quote
Now, somewhere about 20 to 25 degrees before the piston reaches top dead
center (TDC) of piston travel, the spark plug lights the fire. The flame
front starts spreading from each spark plug, slowly at first, then more
rapidly within the cylinder. This flame front plays an important role in all
of this. Ever stick your hand up close to a hot flame? Not in the flame,
just close? It gets hot fast. There is a LOT of infrared heat being given
off by that flame front. It travels at the speed of light. Maybe a few
million times (or so) faster than the flame front is traveling across the
cylinder. That infrared radiation heats up those little local pockets of
fuel and air.

Further, since the piston is rising rapidly in the cylinder, those little
remote local pockets of fuel and air are also experiencing a sudden rise in
pressure.

Still further, because the flame front is a combustion process, it, too, is
causing a further and much larger rise in pressure in the cylinder.

Hold that thought for a moment, while we mention the time scale for all
this.

During the combustion event, the speed of sound (at the higher bulk gas
temperatures) is such that a sound wave can bounce across the cylinder and
back in about 1/5000th of one second, or about 1/5th of a millisecond. This
is easy to instrument and measure. You see the evidence of this in the
little detonation shock waves bouncing back and forth past the pressure
transducer on the back side of the down slope of the combustion pressure
event in the graphics depicting the medium and heavy detonation.

The crankshaft is rotating about 45 times per second and that works out to
about 22 milliseconds for each crankshaft rotation, or about 16 degrees of
crankshaft rotation for each millisecond. So in the time it takes a shock
wave to travel back and forth across the inside of the cylinder, the
crankshaft has only moved about three degrees.

So, now that we have the time scale firmly in mind, we go back and summarize
what is going on:

1.. We have nice cool induction air and fuel entering a cylinder;

2.. The cylinder happens to have very hot walls. Those hot walls cause
some of that nice cool induction air to start to heat up. And it doesn't all
happen uniformly.

3.. Further, shortly after the sparks go off, we have a couple of flame
fronts, giving off lots of infrared heat, adding to the continuing heat load
being absorbed by some of those little remote pockets of fuel and air that
are waiting for the flame front to arrive and consume them;

4.. The unburned mixture is experiencing a very rapid increase in
pressure, because of two things: A) The piston is rising rapidly during the
compression stroke; and B) the flame front combustion products are creating
a huge increase in released energy and resulting bulk gas pressure, all of
which is neatly measured on the pressure traces you see in the accompanying
graphics.

5.. At least some of those little "local pockets" of unburned combustion
mixtures have exactly the right mixture of fuel and air to be just a
hair-trigger away from exploding.

6.. And . if the fuel is the wrong octane, or the spark advance was set
too soon, or the manifold pressure was too high, or the cylinder head
temperature was too high ... then one or more of those little "local
pockets" of unburned fuel do just that ... they "explode."
That is what we call "detonation".

Each explosion creates a shock wave that travels at the speed of sound
(remember, the speed of sound inside the cylinder, at somewhere near 4000
degrees, is very much faster than at a standard day!) and bounces off the
walls of the combustion chamber every 1/5th of a millisecond or so (giving
off a 5KHz "ping" that you will not hear in the cockpit). Each of those
explosions creates a very sharp rise in pressure and sets off a shock wave,
which vibrates back and forth across the cylinder. This shock wave can be
just the right amount of additional pressure to cause some other little
remote local pocket of fuel and air to, in turn, explode, adding to the
problem.

As detonation grows more serious, it will become audible, and this is the
pinging you'll hear from that old auto engine on the uphill grade. Remember,
you will NOT hear it on an aircraft engine.

Let's Talk Temperatures

We know that combustion temperatures are in the 3,000ºF to 4,000ºF range,
but TIT and EGT "only" run around 1,600ºF, and CHTs down around 400ºF. How
can this be? 4,000ºF is more than enough to melt steel, so how does the
interior lining of the cylinder survive? Why don't we see hotter
temperatures on our instruments? Why doesn't the aluminum piston melt down,
when aluminum melts at less than 1,000ºF?

There is a "thermal boundary layer," on the order of a millimeter thin or
so, that acts as a buffer to protect the steel cylinder walls and the
surface of the aluminum piston. Think of it as the thermal equivalent of the
aerodynamic boundary layer out on your wing. The metal and the molecules
right next to it will be at roughly the CHT reading or a bit higher, the
next layers will be hotter and hotter, until the layer next to the
combustion event will be at the combustion temperatures. That very thin
thermal boundary layer acts as a nice insulation barrier, limiting the rate
at which heat can be transferred from the bulk combustion gases into the
interior walls of the cylinder head, cylinder barrel, and piston.

The heat transfer is continuous, as the heat moves first through the
boundary layer, and then the cylinder wall and is finally carried away by
the cooling airflow around the fins on the cylinders. Each intake stroke
brings in a cool new charge, which starts the process all over again. There
is also a matter of time of exposure. The high-pressure part of the
combustion event takes up only about 40 degrees or so of crankshaft
rotation, and the very hottest part of that only about 20 degrees, so during
the other 700 degrees of crank rotation, cooler temperatures prevail. Many
pilots mistakenly focus on the temperature of the exhaust gas as measured by
their familiar EGT probes. EGT shows only a number that represents a
momentary flash of heat during a small portion of the combustion cycle (when
the exhaust valve opens and exhaust gas flows across the EGT probe), and a
rapidly dropping temperature at that.

This is NOT the major factor that determines how hot their exhaust valve is
during operation. The events that happen a few degrees of crankshaft
rotation earlier are much more significant because the temperatures are MUCH
hotter than the piddling little 'ol 1500ºF measured by the EGT probe.

Once detonation becomes serious enough, it disrupts the previously
well-organized thermal boundary layer and allows a greatly increased rate of
heat transfer from the very hot bulk combustion gases (up around 4,000F)
into the cylinder head and the piston. This last stage in the process is
what starts the damage, and drives the CHTs up.

/end

[Morgans[_2_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" > wrote

> That's what I figured. Turbocharged engines are a different kettle of
> fish.
> The main reason is the higher temperatures in the induction system lowers
> the
> detonation margin considerably.

Not just the temp, but the pressures involved.

In a turbo, not producing boost, a low compression ratio is fine with low
octane gas. When the boost is putting all of that extra air and gas into
the combustion chamber, it is still compressing at the same ratio. You end
up with the normal internal pressure, plus the extra pressure the turbo
boost shoved in there. Then detonation becomes a big problem, without the
extra octane.

But you knew all of that, already. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 26, 7:16 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is amazing, how many people fail to realize that the 30% of aircraft
>> that
>> HAVE TO HAVE 100LL are the ones that do 70% (or more) of the flying
>> hours.
>>
>
> I have seen this 30%/70% number repeatedly, but I don't remember it
> ever came from a scientific survey, or just someones rough estimate.

FAA figures.

>
> Regardless of that, this might be true in 1997, but I doubt it's true
> anymore in 2007. Especially if you exclude engines there're
> originally certificated for 91/96 avgas. Commercial operators flying
> large number hours have been increasingly switching to turboprop
> equipment in the last 10 years for things like feeder line freight,
> air taxi or charter.

It'll take years to convert.

> That has contributed to the big decline of
> overall 100LL consumption in U.S.

Do you have a cite for that last one?

What's the GA activity level over the past few years?

[[email protected]]

On Apr 27, 6:34 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" > wrote
>
> > That's what I figured. Turbocharged engines are a different kettle of
> > fish.
> > The main reason is the higher temperatures in the induction system lowers
> > the
> > detonation margin considerably.
>
> Not just the temp, but the pressures involved.
>
> In a turbo, not producing boost, a low compression ratio is fine with low
> octane gas. When the boost is putting all of that extra air and gas into
> the combustion chamber, it is still compressing at the same ratio. You end
> up with the normal internal pressure, plus the extra pressure the turbo
> boost shoved in there. Then detonation becomes a big problem, without the
> extra octane.
>
> But you knew all of that, already. <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

If the engine is turbo "normalized", it never increases the boost
above what the engine would see at sea level power, right? That's why
turbo aircarft engines are rated at the same max power as non turbo
engines. If the engine doesn't need high octane gas at sea level, why
would it need it at altitude where the cylinder pressures are no
higher (merely boosted back to sea level MP). Am I confused?

Regards,
Bud

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
wrote:

> On Apr 27, 6:34 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > "JGalban via AviationKB.com" > wrote
> >
> > > That's what I figured. Turbocharged engines are a different kettle of
> > > fish.
> > > The main reason is the higher temperatures in the induction system lowers
> > > the
> > > detonation margin considerably.
> >
> > Not just the temp, but the pressures involved.
> >
> > In a turbo, not producing boost, a low compression ratio is fine with low
> > octane gas. When the boost is putting all of that extra air and gas into
> > the combustion chamber, it is still compressing at the same ratio. You end
> > up with the normal internal pressure, plus the extra pressure the turbo
> > boost shoved in there. Then detonation becomes a big problem, without the
> > extra octane.
> >
> > But you knew all of that, already. <g>
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> If the engine is turbo "normalized", it never increases the boost
> above what the engine would see at sea level power, right? That's why
> turbo aircarft engines are rated at the same max power as non turbo
> engines. If the engine doesn't need high octane gas at sea level, why
> would it need it at altitude where the cylinder pressures are no
> higher (merely boosted back to sea level MP). Am I confused?
>
> Regards,
> Bud

Even turbo normalizing increases the temperature of the fuel/air mix
entering the cylinders, due to compression of the air to achieve
"normal" pressures. The increased temperature increases the octane
requirements, all by itself.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 28, 9:09 am, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 6:34 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> > > "JGalban via AviationKB.com" > wrote
>
> > > > That's what I figured. Turbocharged engines are a different kettle of
> > > > fish.
> > > > The main reason is the higher temperatures in the induction system lowers
> > > > the
> > > > detonation margin considerably.
>
> > > Not just the temp, but the pressures involved.
>
> > > In a turbo, not producing boost, a low compression ratio is fine with low
> > > octane gas. When the boost is putting all of that extra air and gas into
> > > the combustion chamber, it is still compressing at the same ratio. You end
> > > up with the normal internal pressure, plus the extra pressure the turbo
> > > boost shoved in there. Then detonation becomes a big problem, without the
> > > extra octane.
>
> > > But you knew all of that, already. <g>
> > > --
> > > Jim in NC
>
> > If the engine is turbo "normalized", it never increases the boost
> > above what the engine would see at sea level power, right? That's why
> > turbo aircarft engines are rated at the same max power as non turbo
> > engines. If the engine doesn't need high octane gas at sea level, why
> > would it need it at altitude where the cylinder pressures are no
> > higher (merely boosted back to sea level MP). Am I confused?
>
> > Regards,
> > Bud
>
> Even turbo normalizing increases the temperature of the fuel/air mix
> entering the cylinders, due to compression of the air to achieve
> "normal" pressures. The increased temperature increases the octane
> requirements, all by itself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Never disagreed with this. It is the assertion that the turbo "is
putting all of that extra air and gas into
the combustion chamber" that is of contention. The total mass of fuel
(air + gas) the cylinder injests is the same as a normally aspirated
engine at sea level. That is why having a good fuel flow guage is such
an important factor in running lean of peak, and is a major part of
TAT turbo installations. Heck, when doing the lean test they
recommend, monitoring fuel flow is the primary issue. The poster said
it is "not just the temp". It is. It is also why intercoolers are so
nice. They reduce the work the turbo has to do, and increase the
detonation margin without lowering power output.

Regards,
Bud

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-27 11:52:18 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> said:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007042709185616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> On 2007-04-26 05:36:04 -0700, ktbr > said:
>>
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
>>>> 2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
>>>> in the House.
>>>
>>> Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.
>>
>> It certainly is when you consider that Al was saying that the Republicans
>> controlled both houses.
>>
>> It was the Democrats who passed the gas tax increase that takes effect on
>> July 1 in Washington, not the Republicans.
>
> Algore, Kerry and Hillary have all said (when addressing the appropriate
> audiences) that we should be paying $5.00 a gallon and taxes should be
> raised accordingly.
>
> Wow! More money to **** away.

They do. And when a loaf of bread costs $10 because that is what it
costs to farm and transport the wheat, grind it into flour and
transport that to the baker, bake it and transport the finished loaves
to the store, they will blame the greedy farmers. But it won't matter
because no on will be able to drive to the store to buy the bread
anyway.

After the food riots then, no doubt, they will have even better
programs to save us.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007042815125816807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-04-27 11:52:18 -0700, "Matt Barrow" >
> said:
>
>>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> news:2007042709185616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>>> On 2007-04-26 05:36:04 -0700, ktbr > said:
>>>
>>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
>>>>> 2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
>>>>> in the House.
>>>>
>>>> Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.
>>>
>>> It certainly is when you consider that Al was saying that the
>>> Republicans
>>> controlled both houses.
>>>
>>> It was the Democrats who passed the gas tax increase that takes effect
>>> on
>>> July 1 in Washington, not the Republicans.
>>
>> Algore, Kerry and Hillary have all said (when addressing the appropriate
>> audiences) that we should be paying $5.00 a gallon and taxes should be
>> raised accordingly.
>>
>> Wow! More money to **** away.
>
> They do. And when a loaf of bread costs $10 because that is what it costs
> to farm and transport the wheat, grind it into flour and transport that to
> the baker, bake it and transport the finished loaves to the store, they
> will blame the greedy farmers. But it won't matter because no on will be
> able to drive to the store to buy the bread anyway.
>
> After the food riots then, no doubt, they will have even better programs
> to save us.

It becomes a vicious circle. http://preview.tinyurl.com/22yeyo

[M[_1_]]

On Apr 27, 6:40 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>
> > I have seen this 30%/70% number repeatedly, but I don't remember it
> > ever came from a scientific survey, or just someones rough estimate.
>
> FAA figures.
>

Care to provide the source (URL of the original data)?

>
> > That has contributed to the big decline of
> > overall 100LL consumption in U.S.
>
> Do you have a cite for that last one?
>
> What's the GA activity level over the past few years?

Year US Avgas production and import (thousand barrels)
1999 7485
2000 6648
2001 7121
2002 6584
2003 6255
2004 6295

source:
http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/oil_gas/us_supply_monthly.htm

[M[_1_]]

On Apr 27, 6:40 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

>
> > That has contributed to the big decline of
> > overall 100LL consumption in U.S.
>
> Do you have a cite for that last one?
>

This is an even better source showing the decline of 100LL
consumption:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a403600001m.htm

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"M" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 27, 6:40 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > I have seen this 30%/70% number repeatedly, but I don't remember it
>> > ever came from a scientific survey, or just someones rough estimate.
>>
>> FAA figures.
>>
>
> Care to provide the source (URL of the original data)?
>
>>
>> > That has contributed to the big decline of
>> > overall 100LL consumption in U.S.
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that last one?
>>
>> What's the GA activity level over the past few years?
>
> Year US Avgas production and import (thousand barrels)
> 1999 7485
> 2000 6648
> 2001 7121
> 2002 6584
> 2003 6255
> 2004 6295
>
> source:
> http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/oil_gas/us_supply_monthly.htm

Try "Operating Hours".

It's only in the past year or so that hours flown is recovering to pre-2001
levels.

Hell, just look at your 2003-2004 numbers.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 27, 6:40 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > That has contributed to the big decline of
>> > overall 100LL consumption in U.S.
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that last one?
>>
>
> This is an even better source showing the decline of 100LL
> consumption:
>
> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a403600001m.htm
>

Do you understand correlation vs causation?

[M[_1_]]

On Apr 29, 1:46 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> > This is an even better source showing the decline of 100LL
> > consumption:
>
> >http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a403600001m.htm
>
> Do you understand correlation vs causation?

You're simply arguing without any solid number. Just because you
believe 100LL still has a bright future doesn't mean it's true.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 29, 1:46 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>>
>> > This is an even better source showing the decline of 100LL
>> > consumption:
>>
>> >http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a403600001m.htm
>>
>> Do you understand correlation vs causation?
>
> You're simply arguing without any solid number. Just because you
> believe 100LL still has a bright future doesn't mean it's true.

I never said 100LL had a bright future. I figure inside ten years and it'll
be banned. , for one, would love to invest in TAT and their PRISM system.
MOF, even if 100LL enjoys a long and fruitful life, I'd put a PRISM system
on my airplane the moment the STC is signed.

NTL, You're about oh-for-five in comprehension, on just about every aspect.

One last time: show me flight hours, not any irrelevant numbers you can pull
out of your ass without a context and you might make a small point.

You say the 70-30 ration has been falling for ten years. You've come up with
several unrelated numbers to substantiate your point, such as number of
gallons sold, which does not take into effect the effect of the fall off in
economic activity.

If you can't avoid going off on tangents, or putting round pegs in square
holes, there's no point in me following up.

In sum: you can ext
--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, COract your foot from your mouth and get off your agenda
anytime.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 26, 7:36 am, ktbr > wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
> > 2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
> > in the House.
>
> Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.

Just think of the margin of victory if EVERY voter got to vote and
counted.
Bushco----28% and falling..

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>Even turbo normalizing increases the temperature of the fuel/air mix
>entering the cylinders, due to compression of the air to achieve
>"normal" pressures. The increased temperature increases the octane
>requirements, all by itself.

Correct. That's why I only mentioned inlet temps. I've lived in the
desert most of my life and I get a demonstration of this effect every summer.
I have two vehicles that are designed to run on regular grade fuel. In the
middle of summer, when the weather man says it's 115F, temperatures above a
hot layer of asphalt hover in the 130F - 140F range. Both my truck and
motorcycle will experience detonation under load if I use 87 octane in the
summer. The motorcycle being worse, as it is air-cooled and has less control
over cylinder temps. I have to run at least 89 octane to avoid detonation.
In the winter time, I can run 87 octane without a hint of detonation.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-30 11:58:32 -0700, said:

> On Apr 26, 7:36 am, ktbr > wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
>>> 2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
>>> in the House.
>>
>> Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.
>
> Just think of the margin of victory if EVERY voter got to vote and
> counted.
> Bushco----28% and falling..

We are talking about seats in state legislature here, not voting.

Polls are not votes. Never have been. If they were, Dewey would have
defeated Truman.

It is interesting that the vast majority of Bush critics couldn't be
bothered to show up at the polls.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[virtuPIC]

....always entertaining to follow these discussions on GA costs and
fuel prices. Here in Germany we already pay some $3.50 per Gallon of
mogas and more than five dollars per Gallon of avgas. Don't mention
landing fees and parking fees also on small airfields, briefing fees
for weather and navigation... And on average we earn less than
Americans.

virtuPIC
--
Airspace V - international hangar flying
http://www.airspace-v.com

[Gilan]

Cost of gas just another reason to start flying Light-Sport Aircraft.
It is nice flying at only 4 to 5 gph.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/





" > wrote ..
> ...always entertaining to follow these discussions on GA costs and
> fuel prices. Here in Germany we already pay some $3.50 per Gallon of
> mogas and more than five dollars per Gallon of avgas. Don't mention
> landing fees and parking fees also on small airfields, briefing fees
> for weather and navigation... And on average we earn less than
> Americans.
>
> virtuPIC
> --
> Airspace V - international hangar flying
> http://www.airspace-v.com
>

[Larry Stimely]

Gilan wrote:
> Cost of gas just another reason to start flying Light-Sport Aircraft.
> It is nice flying at only 4 to 5 gph.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

I think the solution lies more in adaptation of diesel technology within
GA, given the near universal availability of Jet A and also that most
diesel piston engines adapted for light aircraft can run Jet A, kerosene
or automotive diesel fuel.

I've also heard that Light Sport aircraft are more difficult to land in
a crosswind. Dick Collins writes that with regard to Light Sport,
"we've been here before" referencing the high death rate in general
aviation during the 1950s and 1960s and lower state of training for
newbie pilots during that era.

Yes, I know I can buy a new Light Sport aircraft for under a hundred
grand but I suspect I'm getting what I paid for.

As for myself, I'm going the Private route even if it takes longer to
complete.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Larry Stimely" > wrote

> Yes, I know I can buy a new Light Sport aircraft for under a hundred grand
> but I suspect I'm getting what I paid for.
>
> As for myself, I'm going the Private route even if it takes longer to
> complete.

If you feel you need the increased flexibility of the private vs. sport
ticket, go ahead.

As far as the light sport aircraft not being adequate, you need to talk to
some people who fly them, and get a flight in a couple different types.

There are a couple dozen that beat a 152 all to pieces, in every regard.
There are a few that beat a 172, except for the two extra seats.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Stimely]

Morgans wrote:
> "Larry Stimely" > wrote
>
>> Yes, I know I can buy a new Light Sport aircraft for under a hundred grand
>> but I suspect I'm getting what I paid for.
>>
>> As for myself, I'm going the Private route even if it takes longer to
>> complete.
>
> If you feel you need the increased flexibility of the private vs. sport
> ticket, go ahead.
>
> As far as the light sport aircraft not being adequate, you need to talk to
> some people who fly them, and get a flight in a couple different types.
>
> There are a couple dozen that beat a 152 all to pieces, in every regard.
> There are a few that beat a 172, except for the two extra seats.

No argument, but what if I'm out somewhere on a weekend, it gets dark
and I can't get home?

Also, in California, there's always the issue of the mountains.

Maybe I don't need the increased flexibility of the Private ticket but I
suppose it only makes financial sense to find out.

I just may do that over the weekend.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Larry Stimely" wrote
>
> No argument, but what if I'm out somewhere on a weekend, it gets dark and
> I can't get home?

Many of the new light sport aircraft have lights for night operation. Of
course, you would need a PP to fly past 30 minutes after sunset, but you can
still fly the equipped LSA.

> Also, in California, there's always the issue of the mountains.

Yes, so you fly the passes. You can fly higher as necessary to get over and
though passes, if I remember correctly, and stay a thousand feet above
terrain. Many of the higher performance light sport planes have the
capability to fly pretty high, especially if equipped with the turbo Rotax
engine, as many are.

> Maybe I don't need the increased flexibility of the Private ticket but I
> suppose it only makes financial sense to find out.

> I just may do that over the weekend.

Some do need the extra capability, but you can always get the light sport
pilot ticket, then upgrade later, if you find you need to.

I wouldn't want to talk you out of anything, but light sport flying is
better flying than no flying! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
> "Larry Stimely" wrote
>
>>No argument, but what if I'm out somewhere on a weekend, it gets dark and
>>I can't get home?
>
>
> Many of the new light sport aircraft have lights for night operation. Of
> course, you would need a PP to fly past 30 minutes after sunset, but you can
> still fly the equipped LSA.
This is where I think LSA will shine. I've got my PP (no instrument
rating) and Ron's got his PP with IA. We've got the Navion, nice, fly
fast, get there, comfy airplane. At 15 - 16 GPH it should be fast, etc.
But let's face it, it's not a putz around weekend plane. My fantasy
would be to ADD (ok, I am losing my mind now) an open, small, on floats
:-) LSA (not even a real LSA but what 2 years ago would have been a FAT
ultralight. I know the LSA can have repositionable gear, but not
retractable gear. Does anyone know if you are flying an LSA on a PP can
you reposition the gear in flight? Now, all I need is a plane, a
seaplane rating and probably a tail wheel endorsement. :-).

Margy

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote

> Does anyone know if you are flying an LSA on a PP can you reposition the
> gear in flight? Now, all I need is a plane, a seaplane rating and
> probably a tail wheel endorsement. :-).

Either they just changed the wording (or interpretation) of the
prepositional gear for LSA amphibians, or they are about to; I don't
remember which, but I have read it in the last month.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote

> prepositional gear for LSA amphibians

Damn spell check, used with fat fingers; I let it change repositional to
prepositional when I didn't want it to.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Margy Natalie wrote:

> This is where I think LSA will shine. I've got my PP (no instrument
> rating) and Ron's got his PP with IA. We've got the Navion, nice, fly
> fast, get there, comfy airplane. At 15 - 16 GPH it should be fast, etc.
> But let's face it, it's not a putz around weekend plane.


Why can't you putz around with it locally? Around the local area I can
run my Bo at 45% power on 8 gph indicating 145-150 mph. You'll never
come out ahead adding an LSA with those numbers.

[mike regish]

I think they call it TBR-as in time between replacement. Not sure how many
hours. I think they're shooting for 3000, but right now I think they're
under 2000 hours.

mike

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
et...
>
> As it is now there is no such thing as an overhaul on those Thielert
> engines. Apparently run them to 'tbo' and throw
> them away...
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" > wrote

> Why can't you putz around with it locally? Around the local area I can
> run my Bo at 45% power on 8 gph indicating 145-150 mph. You'll never come
> out ahead adding an LSA with those numbers.

'Cause the Navion wants to sink, every time you try to land it on the water?
<g,d&r>
--
Jim in NC

[Margy Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>> This is where I think LSA will shine. I've got my PP (no instrument
>> rating) and Ron's got his PP with IA. We've got the Navion, nice, fly
>> fast, get there, comfy airplane. At 15 - 16 GPH it should be fast,
>> etc. But let's face it, it's not a putz around weekend plane.
>
>
>
> Why can't you putz around with it locally? Around the local area I can
> run my Bo at 45% power on 8 gph indicating 145-150 mph. You'll never
> come out ahead adding an LSA with those numbers.
145-150 isn't putzing. I want slow, lazy, weekend hanging out. Powered
Parachute would be fun too, but those can't take any wind at all. The
FIB looks like fun as well. I'd prefer nothing between me and the air.

Margy

[[email protected]]

On May 5, 4:30 am, "Morgans" > wrote:

> I wouldn't want to talk you out of anything, but light sport flying is
> better flying than no flying! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

I have a PPL, but it's a big 10-4 on that! It could be the thing that
saves all of small GA flying. As was said, some of the LSA planes are
awesome, and I am sure I would love to have some of them. It's a good
thing to know that as long as I have a DL, I can fly.

Bud

[Larry Stimely]

Morgans wrote:
> "Larry Stimely" wrote
>> No argument, but what if I'm out somewhere on a weekend, it gets dark and
>> I can't get home?
>
> Many of the new light sport aircraft have lights for night operation. Of
> course, you would need a PP to fly past 30 minutes after sunset, but you can
> still fly the equipped LSA.
>
>> Also, in California, there's always the issue of the mountains.
>
> Yes, so you fly the passes. You can fly higher as necessary to get over and
> though passes, if I remember correctly, and stay a thousand feet above
> terrain. Many of the higher performance light sport planes have the
> capability to fly pretty high, especially if equipped with the turbo Rotax
> engine, as many are.
>
>> Maybe I don't need the increased flexibility of the Private ticket but I
>> suppose it only makes financial sense to find out.
>
>> I just may do that over the weekend.
>
> Some do need the extra capability, but you can always get the light sport
> pilot ticket, then upgrade later, if you find you need to.
>
> I wouldn't want to talk you out of anything, but light sport flying is
> better flying than no flying! <g>

Yeah, I just got back from flying the Evektor Sportstar and I'm pretty
well sold. My wife and I aren't rich and I just can't see blowing all
that money to train in a plane that runs 100LL at 13-14 gph.

I went next door and bought a Los Angeles section and VFR chart, and saw
where if I decided to fly to Vegas or Laughlin...I'd need my private
ticket in pretty short order. The mountains NE of Los Angeles are
easily above 10000 feet and that would be a tough deal in Light Sport.

What's this about a turbocharged Rotax? How about repositionable gear?

Also, does anyone know what the TBO for the Rotax engine is and what it
costs to overhaul them? My instructor/Light Sport sales manager didn't
know.

LS

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Larry Stimely > wrote:
> Morgans wrote:

> Yeah, I just got back from flying the Evektor Sportstar and I'm pretty
> well sold. My wife and I aren't rich and I just can't see blowing all
> that money to train in a plane that runs 100LL at 13-14 gph.

> I went next door and bought a Los Angeles section and VFR chart, and saw
> where if I decided to fly to Vegas or Laughlin...I'd need my private
> ticket in pretty short order. The mountains NE of Los Angeles are
> easily above 10000 feet and that would be a tough deal in Light Sport.

So you go east through the Cajon pass.

The highest point in the pass is about 4000 feet.

At VFR altitudes, that's 5500 and 6500. All the light sports will do
that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark Hansen]

On 05/05/07 17:30, Margy Natalie wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>>
>> Why can't you putz around with it locally? Around the local area I can
>> run my Bo at 45% power on 8 gph indicating 145-150 mph. You'll never
>> come out ahead adding an LSA with those numbers.
> 145-150 isn't putzing. I want slow, lazy, weekend hanging out. Powered
> Parachute would be fun too, but those can't take any wind at all. The
> FIB looks like fun as well. I'd prefer nothing between me and the air.

Then have a look at the Quicksilver ultralight. This was the first ultralight
I trained in (actually, I trained in the model MX-II, which was a two-seat
fat UL trainer).

Quite honestly, I've never had as much fun flying that I did in that
airplane er... vehicle ;-)

>
> Margy



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Maxwell]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 05/05/07 17:30, Margy Natalie wrote:
I want slow, lazy, weekend hanging out. Powered
>> Parachute would be fun too, but those can't take any wind at all. The
>> FIB looks like fun as well. I'd prefer nothing between me and the air.
>
> Then have a look at the Quicksilver ultralight. This was the first
> ultralight
> I trained in (actually, I trained in the model MX-II, which was a two-seat
> fat UL trainer).
>

I was going to recommend that too. I was already a pilot when ultralights
and hang gliders were developed, but I'm sure glad I didn't miss them.

Lots of designs and low cost used equipment around compared to GA. Just
approach it as seriously as you do GA, including the maintenance, and you
open the doors to a whole new aspect of flying for very little money by
comparison. Especially if you are interested in floats.

Just pick a design with full three axis controls, and pick your winds
carefully. Their wing loading is especially light, but especially rewarding
around sunrise and sunset.

[Margy Natalie]

Mark Hansen wrote:
> On 05/05/07 17:30, Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>>Why can't you putz around with it locally? Around the local area I can
>>>run my Bo at 45% power on 8 gph indicating 145-150 mph. You'll never
>>>come out ahead adding an LSA with those numbers.
>>
>>145-150 isn't putzing. I want slow, lazy, weekend hanging out. Powered
>>Parachute would be fun too, but those can't take any wind at all. The
>>FIB looks like fun as well. I'd prefer nothing between me and the air.
>
>
> Then have a look at the Quicksilver ultralight. This was the first ultralight
> I trained in (actually, I trained in the model MX-II, which was a two-seat
> fat UL trainer).
>
> Quite honestly, I've never had as much fun flying that I did in that
> airplane er... vehicle ;-)
>
>
>>Margy
>
>
>
>
Yeah, that is one to look at. A neighbor of mine is thinking we might,
eventually, build one together. Of course that means moving to our lot
in NC.

Margy

[Morgans]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote

> Yeah, that is one to look at. A neighbor of mine is thinking we might,
> eventually, build one together. Of course that means moving to our lot
> in NC.

Come on over! We've got room for a couple more.

As you already know, it really is God's country!
--
Jim in NC

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote
>
>> Yeah, that is one to look at. A neighbor of mine is thinking we
>> might, eventually, build one together. Of course that means moving to
>> our lot in NC.
>
>
> Come on over! We've got room for a couple more.
>
> As you already know, it really is God's country!
I'm trying!!!

Margy

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:54:50 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>It cost me more than $40 at Costco yesterday to fill my gas tank. I
>figure it costs me at least $10 in gas every time I drive to the
>airport -- and I have a hybrid car. I am beginning to wonder how long
>some of the younger instructors can keep this up.

Man, how far do you have to drive?
I'm still driving my old SUV at close to 20 MPG and it happens to be
20 miles round trip which works out to $3.25 or less so far.
With my wife's Prius which is running 46 to 47 MPG it's less than half
that.